"Specified complexity" is word salad, a bunch of made-up bullshit using numbers Dembski pulled out of his ass, totally fucking useless for anything except smuggling Jesus into science class.

It's the epitome of argument from ignorance. "I don't see how this could have happened naturally, therefore Jesus."

... except that Dembski is either too much of a coward or too much of a conniving weasel to use the J word. Either way, is this how you want your faith presented?

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Dembski changes his message to his audience. When he is speaking in a religious magazine, his message is strictly religious.

When Dembski speaks to (or about) science, then there is all these sciency sounding words and no mention of religion.

Looks like someone is using his speaking skills to get paid.

Anyway... Floyd, if you truly think that Dembski has offered a testable, falsifiable hypothesis for ID... then you obviously have no idea what these words mean. Show me...

How do we measure specified complexity?How do we measure irreducible complexity?What units do we measure specified complexity in?What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?What tools do we use to specified complexity?What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?What do we measure to determine specified complexity?What do we measure irreducible complexity ? We'll add EF to all of these...Will a Muslim scientist, an atheist scientist, and a Christian scientist all get exactly the same values (whatever they are) from Dembski's explanatory filter? If yes, then it should be trivial to show this. If not, then why not.

BTW: Someone remind me and I'll look at the high school texts at work in the morning. I know I've got Holt, Pearson, Glencoe, and I think I have Campbell. They may or may not be the most recent additions, but I'll happily look up the info for you.

In fact... I think I already did...

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Evolution of RNA and DNA Another unanswered question in the evolution of cells is the origin of DNA and RNA. Remember that all cells are controlled by information stored in DNA, which is transcribed into RNA and then translated into proteins. How could this complex biochemical machinery have evolved?

Science cannot yet solve this puzzle, although molecular biologists have made surprising discoveries in this area. Under the right conditions, some RNA sequences can help DNA replicate. Other RNA sequences process messenger RNA after transcriptions. Still other catalyze chemical reactions. Some RNA molecules even grow and duplicate themselves - suggesting that RNA might have existed before DNA. A series of experiments that simulated conditions of the early Earth have suggested that small sequences of RNA could have formed and replicated on their own.** From this relatively simple RNA-based form of life, several steps could have led to the system of DNA-directed protein synthesis that exists now.

(my emphasis)

* not the 1993 version which no schools use anymore. Most schools have an 8 year textbook replacement cycle, some go as long as 10 years. If FL says that the 1993 book he quotes is 'current' or 'being used' in a classroom, I would find it very difficult to believe him without some significant evidence.

**I want to keep asking this FL, because you obviously have no idea what current research in molecular biology is. What is the shortest RNA strand that can self replicate? Come floyd, this is a simple google search.

BTW: I just did this to show the inherent uselessness of quote-mining... especially from books that are not current.

This in no way implies that I care about arguing this point. As far as I'm concerned, this is FL's chance to continue where the other thread left off... that is the claim that ID is science.

As usual (and totally unsurprisingly) Floyd has ignored every question about ID, has not produced and evidence, and not provided any information that would even begin suggesting that ID is a science.

So how about it Floyd. ID as science... we gonna discuss that or are you going to keep bitching about evolution? [Keeping in mind that even if you somehow managed to disprove evolution, it doesn't help ID in any way, shape, or form.]

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

How do we measure specified complexity?How do we measure irreducible complexity?What units do we measure specified complexity in?What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?What tools do we use to specified complexity?What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?What do we measure to determine specified complexity?What do we measure irreducible complexity ? We'll add EF to all of these...Will a Muslim scientist, an atheist scientist, and a Christian scientist all get exactly the same values (whatever they are) from Dembski's explanatory filter? If yes, then it should be trivial to show this. If not, then why not.

BTW: Someone remind me and I'll look at the high school texts at work in the morning. I know I've got Holt, Pearson, Glencoe, and I think I have Campbell. They may or may not be the most recent additions, but I'll happily look up the info for you.

In fact... I think I already did...

Reminds me of an email exhcange I recently had with creationist software designer David Pogge who maintains the website scienceagainstevolution.org.

In one of his essays, he claims that engineers have been measuring complexity for 30 years and he was aghast that biologists did not accept their claims. Oh, and that the work by Hazen on emergence is all 'faith'.

So, I asked him if he could tell me how much complexity a dogfish has.

His response was to claim that engineers can indeed measure complexity, and that it is better than biologists who just claim some things look more complex than others.

But he did not even attempt to answer my simple straightforward question.

. . and why should we believe anything you say about textbook contents? Please verify that what you're saying about the Glencoe text is actually true. Scan, please.

Specific quotation and specific citation from the actual source is sufficient, Cs. I'll have that done in just a bit for both Glencoe and Miller-Levine.

If all you have to offer is that old scanned version that you used last time, that's not my fault. Go buy the later version like I did. If the topic is really important to you, you won't mind investing in actual textbooks.

I did your work for you last time when I scanned in the Holt textbook pages. That was from a Holt textbook.

Holt is not Glencoe.

Surely a journalism graduate can figure out how to generate and post a scan, no? If you get stumped, ask a preteen in your neighborhood.

I'll give credit where it's due, no problem. Yep, when I caught you red-texted making up stuff about the Holt textbook's treatment of abiogenesis, well, what else could you do but admit your mistake? How do we know you're not repeating that mistake?

C'mon then - show me - produce a scan of the relevant text so we know that you've read the Glencoe and Miller/Levine textbooks' sections on abiogenesis.

Kudos to Cheryl for her scans. Appears to be sorta older version than mine (2004) but wording is definitely close enough or exact enough, so no argument on that.

***

The part I need to retract is:

Quote

there is no “tentative” language in that textbook WRT that topic (RNA World)

and

Quote

The exact answer to your question, “Does it phrase its discussion of the hypothesis with language such as “one idea scientists consider…” or “one possiblity…?” is a flat-out “No.”

I did not read carefully enough, it seems, especially on the back page or so, and so I admit I am mistaken on that part, since I did say the above statements.

***

On the other hand.…since you have CsAdam’s scans in front of you, Wheels, you CAN confirm for yourself that my following statement IS in fact correct:

Quote

One of the biology textbooks currently used in my hometown school district, for example, introduces students to the “RNA World” hypothesis but does NOT mention any of the problems with it.

Go back and look at those scanned pages again before you respond, Wheels. None of the actual problems associated with the RNA World are actually mentioned in Holt 2004. Nor are the **magnitude** of the problems indicated. (In contrast, Orgel’s article cited earlier, does BOTH imo.)

Okay. It's right there Cs. I acknowledged my error, but you never acknowledged that the other one I got right.

How do we measure specified complexity?How do we measure irreducible complexity?What units do we measure specified complexity in?What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?What tools do we use to specified complexity?What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?What do we measure to determine specified complexity?What do we measure irreducible complexity ? We'll add EF to all of these...

You know, Ogre, I'm sitting here with Dembski's basic book Intelligent Design (1999), along with some of his more technical stuff like "Specification: the Pattern that Defines Intelligence""...

...and I'm just honestly wondering, Why won't Ogre just do 30 minutes of googling and reading the answers to his little laundry list for himself....? Why hasn't he been to a library to even look at the basic easy-read Dembski book?

Tell me why, Ogre. Is it so vital to persuade you that ID is science that I start running around doing all the homework you could do at your keyboard?

Don't see it. Who honestly cares if you are personally convinced or unconvinced? I can't say I am. Sorry to say it like that, but that's how you come across. We did our debate. Do some homework and show me you're interested.

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages. You guys aren't even listening. Not even paying attention. Repeating the same refuted claim.

U gotta be kidding. Honestly.

LOL! Ummm...no, we're not. The fact is, Floyd, your argument was fallacious - begging the question, moving the goal posts, engaging a strawman, etc - and did not in any way address the issue. The fact is, Dembski DID say that ID is religious. End of story. For you to insist that such isn't the definition of ID and thus doesn't count is completely irrelevant and missing the point. It doesn't matter whether ID being the Logos of John is the definition of ID or merely and logical summary of it, it still makes it based on religion and thus NOT based on science and that is the end of it. It thus can't be taught in any school no matter how well the 3-pronged definition is scientific.

Sorry Floyd, but that's reality, not your packaged, empty claims to the contrary.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

This one was specifically knocked out in the past few pages. You guys aren't even listening. Not even paying attention. Repeating the same refuted claim.

U gotta be kidding. Honestly.

LOL! Ummm...no, we're not. The fact is, Floyd, your argument was fallacious - begging the question, moving the goal posts, engaging a strawman, etc - and did not in any way address the issue. The fact is, Dembski DID say that ID is religious. End of story. For you to insist that such isn't the definition of ID and thus doesn't count is completely irrelevant and missing the point. It doesn't matter whether ID being the Logos of John is the definition of ID or merely and logical summary of it, it still makes it based on religion and thus NOT based on science and that is the end of it. It thus can't be taught in any school no matter how well the 3-pronged definition is scientific.

Sorry Floyd, but that's reality, not your packaged, empty claims to the contrary.

I believe the technical term is argumentum ad afdavum.Make claim.Watch as claim is blown apart.Wipe crap off face.Declare victory.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

How do we measure specified complexity?How do we measure irreducible complexity?What units do we measure specified complexity in?What units do we measure irreducible complexity in?What tools do we use to specified complexity?What tools do we use to measure irreducible complexity?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?What do we measure to determine specified complexity?What do we measure irreducible complexity ? We'll add EF to all of these...

You know, Ogre, I'm sitting here with Dembski's basic book Intelligent Design (1999), along with some of his more technical stuff like "Specification: the Pattern that Defines Intelligence""...

...and I'm just honestly wondering, Why won't Ogre just do 30 minutes of googling and reading the answers to his little laundry list for himself....? Why hasn't he been to a library to even look at the basic easy-read Dembski book?

Tell me why, Ogre. Is it so vital to persuade you that ID is science that I start running around doing all the homework you could do at your keyboard?

Don't see it. Who honestly cares if you are personally convinced or unconvinced? I can't say I am. Sorry to say it like that, but that's how you come across. We did our debate. Do some homework and show me you're interested.

Tell me why Floyd, you assume that I've never read Dembski or Meyer or Behe and haven't looked at their math (or lack thereof).

In all my years studying ID, tell me why I have never once seen a single calculation of specified complexity. Tell FL, tell me why Dembski has never calculated the CSI, or EF, or IC or anything of a single organism, designed object, non-designed object, DNA strand, or protein.

That's all I really want FL. I know you can't answer any of my questions. I know you can't because Dembski can't and he invented the stupid concept.

Tell me Floyd, tell me why, in ten years are so of peddling CSI, EF, IR, and BS that Dembski has never bothered to actually use his ideas to do any actual, you know, work.

Here's my hypothesis and, like you do to us, you prove it wrong.

If Demski does any actual calculations in support of ID, then it will prove his theory is BS.

So, come on FL. Put up or shut up.

So, where's that evidence? Where's that math? You say, I can look it up on google, then give me the search terms, or a link.

BTW:Even if you prove evolution wrong... even if you prove evolution is religion incarnate... there is still no support for ID.

And that's your problem. Everything else you say or do that doesn't provide support for ID is just wanking. Until some evidence to support whatever it is that ID says is brought out, then science (and science classrooms) are fully justified in totally ignoring it.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

I think it's clear from the main debate thread that evolution is religious (at least if we read what evolutionists themselves publish.)

But, no need to rehash that debate. You lost that one, and you can't get it back.

"evolutionists" can publish whatever books they want to. They point you consistantly fail to recognize is that everything an "evolutionist" publishes is not science.

I wrote an article on how to build a deck. That doesn't make me a carpenter.

I also wrote an article on the results of a battle between the USS Enterprise and the Battlestar Galactica. That doesn't mean what I do at work isn't science, just because I wrote about science fiction.

Science deals with evidence, falsifiability, and the peer-review of original research.

Is everything Dembski publishes religous? Of course not. But he has publicly said, on more than one occasion, that ID is based on his Judeo-Christian religion. Of course, he never says that in his books about ID... which leads one to wonder why he changes his message for different audiences.

Do you ever ask yourself questions like that Floyd? Do you ever wonder why Dembski says some things to some people and other things to other people? Do you ever wonder what he did with the $20,000 he got for not showing up at Dover? Ever wonder why he stole a copyrighted work? Do you ever wonder why you have to play word games while we present paper after paper that shows you're wrong? Do you ever wonder why you talk on an insignificant forum instead of taking on science in the real world?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Why won't Ogre just do 30 minutes of googling and reading the answers to his little laundry list for himself....?

Why don't you surprise us all and give links to where the answers to those questions can be found.

Nobody else ever has. Perhaps you can be the first.

Seriously.

Quote

What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be designed?What values of the above measurements indicated that an organism has sufficient specified complexity to be not designed?

Or just those two would do.

The thing is FL you obviously don't realise there are no answers out there to those questions. Yet you are happy to claim that there are in support of your argument.

You are using an empty shell to support your argument and don't even realise it. And won't even check for yourself. Despite being told as much.

There's a name for people like you. Why don't you use the EF to determine it.

Prove me wrong. Page numbers/links to where those questions are answered. Or are you yet another ID shill who won't answer any specific questions as you tell people that they "need to read the book" first. Available at all good book-stores, $11.99.

You've already come back with "all those questions are answered in Dembski's book". But will you be able to point to a specific page number and paragraph in answer to the specific questions you were asked?

If you can, great. You were right.

If you can't. Well.....

Simply saying "all those questions" are answered in a basic-easy to read Dembski book is such a cop out.

Quote

Is it so vital to persuade you that ID is science that I start running around doing all the homework you could do at your keyboard?

Except you can't. Answers to those questions do not exist. I've asked most of them myself over at UD and got no answers, except that "500+ bits of FSCI = designed".

Quote

Do some homework and show me you're interested.

I know it's your first response when question to say "the answers are in a book". It's what you do in the rest of your life, for every question. Except this time I'm asking you what page number the answer to the question what value does an organism have for specified complexity where that is sufficient specified complexity to be designed? Not designed?

Bluffer.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

"Who honestly cares if you are personally convinced or unconvinced? I can't say I am. "

You should care. Dembski has not managed to convince anybody except those of a particular religiosity. Everybody else who has heard of him thinks that he is a crook.

Now, the ranks of Christians (especially the right wing Christianity) are thinning especially amongst the young, you can see it very strongly on the internet. While there are vocal creationists, I think that they are far out numbered.

Tell me Floyd, tell me why, in ten years are so of peddling CSI, EF, IR, and BS that Dembski has never bothered to actually use his ideas to do any actual, you know, work.

Good points. In my experience, when I have presented DNA sequences, etc. to ID CSI/IC types and asked them to tell me about the 'complexity' and such, I inevitably am told that I first must tell them 'what it does.'

In other words, they cannot say a thing about one of their main arguments unless they already have an answer.

Dude: How much CSI is in this bit of DNA?

IDC: Well, um, what is that bit of DNA?

Dude: What do you mean?

IDC: Is it forma gene, or...

Dude: Oh, it is part fo a gene

IDC: Oh Well, then it definitely has CSI that was put there via intelligence

Okay. It's right there Cs. I acknowledged my error, but you never acknowledged that the other one I got right.

No need to go any farther until you do.

Oh, I see. You won't produce any evidence unless I give you credit.

I'll give you credit, sure enough. In fact, responded to your argument over a year ago:

Quote

Let me see if I get this - FL, you’re now complaining that the short little paragraph in the text dealing with the RNA world hypothesis doesn’t mention one of your pet problems with it?

Riiiiight. Note that nowhere does the term “RNA world” even appear in the text. The para on p. 256 is labeled “A possible role for catalysts.” Right there, big and bold.

(So if you were to wander into my classroom today, you’d probably gripe that I’m not teaching the mathematics of Gauss’ law to freshman who are learning the difference between resistance and conductance. Gotcha.)

The final paragraph in the section also makes it clear that the origin of RNA is far from understood:

Quote

Because researchers do not yet understand how DNA, RNA, and hereditary mechanisms first developed, how life might have originated naturally and spontaneously remains a subject of intense interest, research, and discussion among scientists.

FL, I hope you’ve learned something here: that you’d best check original sources to make sure they actually say what your favorite websites claim they say. Between your bastardization of the Holt text and your subsequent use of the Gould quote-mine, you seem to be following in the footsteps of Don McLeroy.

So yeah, I give you credit. I give you credit for continually refusing to provide evidence in the form of page scans. I give you credit for not responding to the above points I made over a year ago. I give you credit for ignoring the suggestion that you write your very own high-school level treatment of origin-of-life.

Dollars to doughnuts that you'll refuse to provide the scans unless I say exactly what you want me to say. Meh. I don't dance that way. Besides, you've used other excuses before to not provide original documentation.